Dr. Sanity takes issue with the proposed application of punishment competently adjudicated by the lawful courts of the pertinent jurisdiction. The defendant was raised within the jurisdiction and knew full well that her actions were in violation of the law which she willfully broke. Dr. Sanity's lack of respect for another culture's norms, customs and laws - all of which are accepted and practiced within at least fifty countries with a combined population of over 1.3 billion people who support and obey the law and understand the consequences involved when it is broken - can only be interpreted as a repudiation of their right to act as they see fit.

Who is Dr. Sanity to judge the morality of 1.3 billion adherents to laws established some 1400 years ago? Does custom and common practice mean nothing to her? Doesn't she understand that these laws are applied every day within those countries without more than a murmur of dissent from those governed by them? Surely the people so governed would raise a cry if they thought the laws unjust or their application less than merciful? The absence of outcry from within the countries should be evidence sufficient for the Dr. to apply a rule of "silence implies consent" and remain at least neutral in the face of other's time honored customs. It's not as though they were trying to impose their laws on us, is it?